§ Statement of Purpose

The View from 1776 presents a framework to understand present-day issues from the viewpoint of the colonists who fought for American independence in 1776 and wrote the Constitution in 1787. Knowing and preserving those understandings, what might be called the unwritten constitution of our nation, is vital to preserving constitutional government. Without them, the bare words of the Constitution are just a Rorschach ink-blot that politicians, educators, and judges can interpret to mean anything they wish.

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams, to the Officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/12 at 06:31 PM

The alleged free speech inhibition of climate change deniers is about as real as the annual Fox News reports on the "War on Christmas."

Exhibit A, front and center, is Senator James Mountain Inhofe of Oklahoma, climate change denier in chief, who has been elevated by our Republican friends to the chairmanship of the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. Inhofe, author of “The Greatest Hoax, How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,” is held up as a beacon of truth among those who share his distrust of evidence.

Anyone who claims Mr. Inhofe's hilarious denials of science are being suppressed and his freedom of speech is under threat should provide examples.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/13 at 11:09 AM

J. Jay,

Once again, you have treated us to the counterfactual rendition of reality:
a) denying as real: actual attacks, threats, and inhibitions on free-speech which Thomas here chronicles (ergo, established as fact)
b) denying as real: numerous attacks, threats, and inhibitions on Christianity, Christmas, religious-freedom, &c which Thomas and others have documented elsewhere (i.e., abundantly established fact)

In rebuttal, you offer only that Inofe’s continued ability to refute [your] counterfactual, demonstrably unscientific warming nonsense somehow proves there has been no such speech infringement by anyone against anyone else, ever! This despite numerous attempts by the warming fanatics to muzzle Inofe and others by any means available short of violence. And, maybe even that as physically punishing and criminalizing skeptics is fast turning into an art-form and box-office bonanza (see http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/22/Splattergate-II-green-graphic-novel-celebrates-eco-terrorism-shopping-mall-killing-spree ; and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/a-murderous-act-the-kill-climate-deniers-theater-project/ ) which then fuels real-life violence. Pray tell, then, how does one Senator (someone with a bully pulpit and a lot of political clout and special protections most of us lack) demonstrate there is ‘no free speech inhibition on the subject of climate change – none, nowhere, nada? Thomas just gave you a handful of prime examples of actual suppression by people in power; and/or justifications, threats of and blatant calls for suppression by those having some means of influencing those in power:

Exhibit B – London Times Environmental Editor insisting climate sceptics shut up while advocating the BBC (a state monopoly) give them less air time and only then if accompanied by ‘health warnings’

Exhibit C – a liberal (pro climate-change) scientist is forced out of a new job working with a provably non-partisan group of fellow scientists and policymakers attempting to find common ground. The group is falsely portrayed as ‘climate skeptics’ (some are, but others are warming true-believers – see http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/ ) by climate hardliners unwilling to allow any kind of debate, however mild and compromising it may be

Exhibit D – Spiked-Online chronicling feminist harpies harassingly halting the publication of soft porn (wasn’t it the looney ‘sexual-liberation’ left and ACLU that went to bat for Larry Flynt’s free-speech right to offend?)

Now I ask you, which of us is the ‘denier’ here: us for questioning the warming hard-sell in a manner consistent with reasonably rational enquiry, or you for denying actual cases placed in evidence based on a purely subjective digression?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388595/robert-kennedy-jr-aspiring-tyrant-charles-c-w-cooke – here too. Note how several of the more negative respondents to this article brazenly support Kennedy’s proposition skeptics should be jailed for our skepticism (or worse). Mr. Chamberlain’s remarks are especially worthy of our notice wherein he writes: “Are humans capable of the war crimes, of crimes against humanity, of genocide, of ecocide the proposed crime of causing the extensive damage to the environment, to fish, forest, water, soil, endangered species, to our planet’s atmosphere?
We believe so and we intend to regulate or prosecute those committing ecocide?” What kind of sick mind equates reasonable skepticism and/or even ‘let’s take a step back to think this through’ caution to ‘war-crimes’. But, by all means J. Jay, ignore threats of this kind as the blathering of impotent idiots. You can be certain many an inmate of Nazi death-camps and Soviet Gulags regret those bullies were not taken more seriously too.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-of-fear-global-warming-alarmists-intimidate-dissenting-scientists-into-silence/5294 - probably, nowhere is skepticism under greater attack and censorship than within the scientific community itself; for, whereas most ‘hardcore’, non-scientist skeptics will only be intimidated using draconian measures (threats of jail-time, lawsuits, and death), the intimidation of scientists (most of whom are or were quietly neutral on the subject until attacked or their work corrupted) is mainly against their livelihood and professional standing. Thus, climate-fascists get far more bang for their buck (and far less exposure) by going after them; and this has seriously stifled objective science.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=265464 – a journalist justifying why he opposes giving airtime to skeptics; while not censorship if only Blakemore is doing it, the fact the vast majority of broadcasters now do the same thing amounts to censorial conspiracy by the MSM.